The primary goal of this site is to provide mature, meaningful discussion about the Vancouver Canucks. However, we all need a break some time so this forum is basically for anything off-topic, off the wall, or to just get something off your chest! This forum is named after poster Creeper, who passed away in July of 2011 and was a long time member of the Canucks message board community.

There isn't anything more dangerous than a few people with too much time on their hands and no direction...

Will the protests spread? What the fuck is the point? Yes corporate profit corrupt banks and greed have fucked up the economy in the States but it is going to take more than a bunch of Wreck Beach hippies in lattes to start a real American revolution...it's kinda like fighting the HST....yeah you won but to what end?

Not talking about Left versus Right here either. It's just logic, we cannot grow our economy forever.Sustainability is not achievable, a noble goal but short sited...like the trendy Wall Street protests...

There isn't anything more dangerous than a few people with too much time on their hands and no direction...

Will the protests spread? What the fuck is the point? Yes corporate profit corrupt banks and greed have fucked up the economy in the States but it is going to take more than a bunch of Wreck Beach hippies in lattes to start a real American revolution...it's kinda like fighting the HST....yeah you won but to what end?

Not talking about Left versus Right here either. It's just logic, we cannot grow our economy forever.Sustainability is not achievable, a noble goal but short sited...like the trendy Wall Street protests...

Time to eat the family dog

The bolded above seems like a reference to something I am unfamiliar with?

As for the rest I see your point but dont we need to start somewhere? whats the expression "All that evil needs to flourish is for good men to do nothing?"

There isn't anything more dangerous than a few people with too much time on their hands and no direction...

Will the protests spread? What the fuck is the point? Yes corporate profit corrupt banks and greed have fucked up the economy in the States but it is going to take more than a bunch of Wreck Beach hippies in lattes to start a real American revolution...it's kinda like fighting the HST....yeah you won but to what end?

Not talking about Left versus Right here either. It's just logic, we cannot grow our economy forever.Sustainability is not achievable, a noble goal but short sited...like the trendy Wall Street protests...

Time to eat the family dog

The bolded above seems like a reference to something I am unfamiliar with?

As for the rest I see your point but dont we need to start somewhere? whats the expression "All that evil needs to flourish is for good men to do nothing?"

Adbusters is a magazine by those evil creative geniues in the advertising industry that sell us shit we don't need...by day make the lifestyle of materialism look desirable, by night, make this corporate bastards look bad with photoshop spreads like a centrefold from hell...

Are they good men protesting? Are they organized? Or just angry. They need a leader don't they or a cause at least.

Seems to me they are just angry they don'y have jobs to buy more stuff. The sixties protests had a little more umph! to them. I think this will fizzle unless someone steps up, the unions getting involved is making it political but the average Joe is still too concerned about just paying the mortgage, sending the kids off to school, getting the latest toys to care.Or, if you're like Doc, just waiting for EndTimes™ so they can ride their winged limo to the sweet hereafter

Arachnid wrote: Not talking about Left versus Right here either. It's just logic, we cannot grow our economy forever.Sustainability is not achievable, a noble goal but short sited...like the trendy Wall Street protests...

People keep saying this, but I'm not so certain that it is correct. And if the site is too short, buy a bigger one.

We've been running out of coal, copper, iron, oil, whatnot for centuries, and still it never happens. Modern manufacturing tends to use less and less resources to produce a specific product, and since most products have an expiration date, they will eventually become scrap that we can recycle, and by constantly fine tuning manufacturing we can produce more from less and have a growing economy even with a fixed amount of commodities. The only reason I can see that we would eventually run out of commodities is if we refuse to recycle and instead start using rockets to send all scrap into outer space, and I'm pretty sure there are very few proponents of this.

What is sustainability anyway? To me it seems that all these theories are based on some zero sum theory where the same amount of resources and labour are forever linked to the same outcome. I don't subscribe to that.

Between 1950 and 2000, during the so called "second agricultural revolution of modern times", U.S. agricultural productivity rose fast, especially due to the development of new technologies. For exemple, the average yield of corn rose from 39 bushels to 153 bushels per acre (+292%). Now, most of the third world have not even reached those 1950 levels of productivity! By funding irrigation of areas that today are mostly desert and by educating people and spreading modern farming technology, I'm pretty sure we could easily produce twice the amount of food that we do today. Heck, 80% of Sweden is forest. If we had to focus on food production we could probably produce ten times what we do now.

And contrary to popular belief, the global population is not goint to grow at an exponential rate forever. In fact, birth rates peaked in the mid 90's and are now falling. The reason no one seems to have noticed is that thanks to better health care, people live longer, so the total population will still grow for another 50 years or so before stabilising and then possibly starting to drop. In two thirds of countries women today on average give birth to less than two children, which means that the long term trend is a shrinking population. That coupled to the very skewered proportion between boys and girls born in places like China and India will only further strengthen this trend.

If we were to live like hunters/gatherers, the earth could probably only feed less than a billion people, but thanks to agriculture and specialisation of trades we already manage to feed seven billion, and I'm sure we can fit in twice as many if necessary. Most likely the global population will peak somewhere between ten and twelve though, and then start declining.

Arachnid wrote: Not talking about Left versus Right here either. It's just logic, we cannot grow our economy forever.Sustainability is not achievable, a noble goal but short sited...like the trendy Wall Street protests...

People keep saying this, but I'm not so certain that it is correct. And if the site is too short, buy a bigger one.

We've been running out of coal, copper, iron, oil, whatnot for centuries, and still it never happens. Modern manufacturing tends to use less and less resources to produce a specific product, and since most products have an expiration date, they will eventually become scrap that we can recycle, and by constantly fine tuning manufacturing we can produce more from less and have a growing economy even with a fixed amount of commodities. The only reason I can see that we would eventually run out of commodities is if we refuse to recycle and instead start using rockets to send all scrap into outer space, and I'm pretty sure there are very few proponents of this.

What is sustainability anyway? To me it seems that all these theories are based on some zero sum theory where the same amount of resources and labour are forever linked to the same outcome. I don't subscribe to that.

Between 1950 and 2000, during the so called "second agricultural revolution of modern times", U.S. agricultural productivity rose fast, especially due to the development of new technologies. For exemple, the average yield of corn rose from 39 bushels to 153 bushels per acre (+292%). Now, most of the third world have not even reached those 1950 levels of productivity! By funding irrigation of areas that today are mostly desert and by educating people and spreading modern farming technology, I'm pretty sure we could easily produce twice the amount of food that we do today. Heck, 80% of Sweden is forest. If we had to focus on food production we could probably produce ten times what we do now.

And contrary to popular belief, the global population is not goint to grow at an exponential rate forever. In fact, birth rates peaked in the mid 90's and are now falling. The reason no one seems to have noticed is that thanks to better health care, people live longer, so the total population will still grow for another 50 years or so before stabilising and then possibly starting to drop. In two thirds of countries women today on average give birth to less than two children, which means that the long term trend is a shrinking population. That coupled to the very skewered proportion between boys and girls born in places like China and India will only further strengthen this trend.

If we were to live like hunters/gatherers, the earth could probably only feed less than a billion people, but thanks to agriculture and specialisation of trades we already manage to feed seven billion, and I'm sure we can fit in twice as many if necessary. Most likely the global population will peak somewhere between ten and twelve though, and then start declining.

Arachnid wrote: Time to eat the family dog

Thanks, but I think I'll pass.

Sustainability is defined as keeping up our life style while ensuring the future generations....yeah, this is all based on if the guys keep there pants zipped up (do they have zippers in Africa? ). The worlds resources are finite Per. This we know, if we keep our world population to today's levels, maybe, just maybe we can recycle and develop renewables to sustain us but we are not doing that. The worlds pop just popped at what? 7 Billion? It is estimated to double by the end of the century...you do the math...there is no way in hell we can sustain anything....I said it before and I'll say it again...change is a come'n...and it's gonna be a dousy...

The people protesting wall street would drop a deuce if the guy standing beside them had their head blown off by a state launched rocket. They’d all be home in thirty seconds!

Wonna show me you got balls? Show me you demand change! Take on tanks with rocks and bottles.

That’s how you show the world you stand for something!

“These handcuffs are too tight man”!

Everyone has their Iphone out recording the NYPD arresting people. Asking them to yell out their first and last name because lord know most of these people won’t make it home for dinner and Dancing With the Stars!

It’s a joke, these people stand for NOTHING! They wouldn’t sacrifice a thing to envoke CHANGE!

Nothing more than well too do white mammyrammers with a little time on their hands.

Per wrote:And contrary to popular belief, the global population is not goint to grow at an exponential rate forever. In fact, birth rates peaked in the mid 90's and are now falling. The reason no one seems to have noticed is that thanks to better health care, people live longer, so the total population will still grow for another 50 years or so before stabilising and then possibly starting to drop. In two thirds of countries women today on average give birth to less than two children, which means that the long term trend is a shrinking population. That coupled to the very skewered proportion between boys and girls born in places like China and India will only further strengthen this trend.

Sustainability is defined as keeping up our life style while ensuring the future generations....yeah, this is all based on if the guys keep there pants zipped up (do they have zippers in Africa? ). The worlds resources are finite Per. This we know, if we keep our world population to today's levels, maybe, just maybe we can recycle and develop renewables to sustain us but we are not doing that. The worlds pop just popped at what? 7 Billion? It is estimated to double by the end of the century...you do the math...there is no way in hell we can sustain anything....I said it before and I'll say it again...chage is a come'n...and it's gonna be a dousy...

No, as I just said, it'll never reach 14 billion. Population growth has already started to level out and is expected to peak somewhere between 10 and 12 billion.

And it's not really about zipping up your pants. It's about enabling the women of the world to choose how many children they want to have by providing cheap and reliable contraception. Wherever family planning becomes available, birth rates drop.

Arachnid wrote:Or, if you're like Doc, just waiting for EndTimes™ so they can ride their winged limo to the sweet hereafter

Wotever, Hell with you and your save-the-world bullshit, it'll all be over soon enough:

Oh, I ain't save'n nothin'n Doc, while the sheep go to heaven and all the others (muslims, jews, atheists, Leaf Fans... ) go to hell in The End I plan on live'n just how I been live'n and pick up the pieces of whatevers left